PA: Senate panel OKs bill allowing school employees to carry guns

[daschnoz]

This bill, in its present form, isn't the answer. It requires the school employee to have an LTCF, which means that it forces disclosure of confidential LTCF info. Further, I am sure the school district will keep this info on file and the bill does not address ensuring the confidentiality of that information by the school district. IMO, it would make more sense that the school employee be ACT 235 certified.

235 - I was thinking the same thing. A LTCF simply means that you're not a criminal. It does nothing to show or require that you can actually hit what you (think you) are aiming at.

[ungawa]

Even if this thing were to pass, how many school board of directors would approve it?

[TSimonetti]

235 - I was thinking the same thing. A LTCF simply means that you're not a criminal. It does nothing to show or require that you can actually hit what you (think you) are aiming at.

It seems to me that 235 would have to be amended to be useful because it applies to people being hired as security, and not applicable for existing state employees.

I see nothing wrong with requiring a LTCF, perhaps something can be written into the law also requiring mandatory training. It's good that concerns about privacy are being discussed, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. Some form of paperwork and record keeping is going to be necessary for this to fly and parents deserve full disclosure.

[SigForLife]

I see nothing wrong with requiring a LTCF, perhaps something can be written into the law also requiring mandatory training. It's good that concerns about privacy are being discussed, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. Some form of paperwork and record keeping is going to be necessary for this to fly and parents deserve full disclosure.

No problem, even though LTCF information is confidential and not subject to disclosure, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 6111(g)(3.1) and (i)? Under 6111(g)(3.1), it is a felony of the 3rd degree and 6111(i) provides for civil penalties for disclosure of LTCF info. Then you say parents deserve full disclosure, so you're saying they should have access to the school official's confidential LTCF info? Why? You do know that if it is made public, those individuals will be the first people confronted by an active shooter, since active shooters plan in advance and will know exactly who poses them the largest threat.

[RenoV8]

Its time for a different approach to what has been the norm for too long. I don't care how they do it, or what is the best way to get these people approved/certified...just get it done. I am sure all of those people/kids who have had to live through a school shooting would be more forgiving of a politician allowing guns for administrators than guns for a lunatic/disgruntled idiot.

When one gets all tied up in the specifics, before the basics can be established, nothing happens.

Make it happen.

[P89]

LTCF & 235 cert is great and all but that individual(s) better be willing and have the mind set to step up to an active shooter no matter what the consequences.
Some people just aren't built that way.

Regardless, this needs to happen one way or another.

[Bang]

It is interesting that there are two camps on this subject. It seems so clear-cut obvious that students would be better served by having defense guns in house rather than calling for guns when needed (the police) resulting in too late...yet the union sees danger to the students if guns are in the school.

From this, and many examples of two-sided stands, I can only conclude the human brain is unreliable.

[RenoV8]

It is interesting that there are two camps on this subject. It seems so clear-cut obvious that students would be better served by having defense guns in house rather than calling for guns when needed (the police) resulting in too late...yet the union sees danger to the students if guns are in the school.

From this, and many examples of two-sided stands, I can only conclude the human brain is unreliable.

What the Union sees is someone outside of their control inside the schools. I hate to be so direct, but that is what it boils down to. Now, if these armed defenders are Union members and fall under their purview...end of conflict.

Every group in the armed school arguement has an agenda....and most of them have no business being in school politics or for that matter our armed school politics. Put aside the differences and hammer out a deal.

[ungawa]

It seems to me that 235 would have to be amended to be useful because it applies to people being hired as security, and not applicable for existing state employees.

I see nothing wrong with requiring a LTCF, perhaps something can be written into the law also requiring mandatory training. It's good that concerns about privacy are being discussed, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. Some form of paperwork and record keeping is going to be necessary for this to fly and parents deserve full disclosure.

Do kids go to malls? Chuckey Cheese? Doctor's offices? Perhaps we should all wear sashes for full disclosure to parents. A school is no different. Except that the consequences of disclosure would be far worse. You'd have those leftist Brownshirts rioting at the school and attacking people that came out at the end of the day. Or, knowing them, going inside and attacking people.

[ungawa]

School boards will not approve this. But I repeat myself. The bill is pointless other than perhaps being symbolic.